A contractor who took a design firm to court after concrete on its development deteriorated just four months after completion has lost its case.<\/p>\n
Cambridgeshire-based MJS Projects (March) Ltd took designers RPS Consulting Services Ltd to Leeds\u2019 Technology and Construction Court for alleged negligence and breach of contract.<\/p>\n
It alleged that concrete surrounding drains in the design of a container park near Felixstowe Port was suffering from deterioration and damage four months after completion.<\/p>\n
The case focused on whether the deterioration and damage was caused by RPS\u2019s design, by the manner in which the drains were constructed or both.<\/p>\n
Following a trial, Judge Kelly dismissed MJS Project\u2019s claim.<\/p>\n
MJS Projects was constructing the container park under a JCT design-and-build contract.<\/p>\n
It had subcontracted the design of the park to RPS Consulting Services and the construction to MJS Construction. No claim was brought by MJS Projects against MJS Construction. The court heard MJS Construction and MJS Projects share an insurance policy as part of an umbrella agreement.<\/p>\n
The court heard drains were required in various areas of the container yard and as a result three Gatic slot drains were included as part of the design.<\/p>\n
The work was completed in August 2017, but the court heard that by December 2017 concrete surrounding the slot drains was suffering from deterioration and damage.<\/p>\n
The court heard that RPS\u2019s final design specified 32mm dowels should be used but instead 25mm dowels were used.<\/p>\n
\u201cIn my judgement, all of the damage identified by December 2017 was caused by construction errors,\u201d Judge Kelly ruled.<\/p>\n
\u201cDowels of the wrong size were installed. The dowels were installed at the wrong depth in the concrete and at the wrong angle. Some dowels were bent. Some dowels were missing. The experts agreed that those were all detrimental changes.\u201d<\/p>\n
The judge found that reinforcement mesh \u201cwas not installed in accordance with the design\u201d.<\/p>\n
\u201cWhere it was missing from the base of the Gatic slot drains concrete surround, that was a detrimental change,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n
\u201cIn some areas, side reinforcement mesh was added to the Gatic slot drains concrete surround, that was a beneficial change. Despite that, damage still occurred in those areas where side mesh had been installed.<\/p>\n
\u201cIt must therefore have been caused by workmanship issues.<\/p>\n
\u201cIn short, I do not find that the defendant\u2019s design was negligent or in breach of contract.\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
A contractor who took a design firm to court after concrete on its development deteriorated just four months after completion has lost its case. Cambridgeshire-based MJS Projects (March) Ltd took designers RPS Consulting Services Ltd to Leeds\u2019 Technology and Construction Court for alleged negligence and breach of contract. It alleged that concrete surrounding drains in …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":155153,"featured_media":420689,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"ep_exclude_from_search":false},"categories":[578],"tags":[],"yoast_head":"\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\n\n\n\n\t\n\t\n\t\n